Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS)

[deltaV]

Here's a simple mathematical model of the question of whether or not test flights should be done. Let us assume that failed missions will be retried, which is admittedly not always the case but simplifies the model by eliminating the need to include terms for the benefit of success. Let's assume that CLPS flights have probability p of failing during each launch until the first success and never fail thereafter, i.e. the number of initial failures is geometrically distributed with parameter p. Let Cost(lander) be the cost of the lander including its launch and Cost(payload) be the cost of the payload. The expected cost of the program of record (i.e. launching payloads on all flights) is then (Cost(lander) + Cost(payload)) * (1 + p + p^2 + ...) = (Cost(lander) + Cost(payload)) / (1 - p). The expected cost of launching payloads only after a successful test flight is Cost(lander) + Cost(payload) + Cost(lander) * (1 + p + p^2 + ...) = Cost(lander) + Cost(payload) + Cost(lander) / ( 1 - p). Doing some algebra test flights are cheaper if Cost(lander) < (p / (1 - p)) * Cost(payload). E.g. if p = 0.6, which seems plausible considering Astrobotic's lander failed and IM's lander partially failed, test flights are cheaper if Cost(lander) < 1.5 * Cost(payload). This inequality should be easily satisfied at least for relatively expensive payloads like VIPER hence test flights would save money in expectation. Note that the above model assumes that NASA payloads are the only payloads; if non-NASA payloads can be found for the test flights then test flights are even more favorable.

[Danderman]

Although I am a big supporter of the policy of NASA buying space science data ftom private companies (I wrote the enabling language in the Commercial Space Act of 1998), I am not happy with the implementation.

My take on the implementation: NASA throws money at startups with no track record, and hopes that they can pull off lunar landings with zero experience in space. Giving contracts for companies that haven't even launched a Cubesat is a recipe for disaster.

Once enough of these errors result in money thrown into the trash, I would hope that NASA will simply buy data from private missions, funded by private capital.

SpaceX had no experience when it won a COTS award.

By the time of the COTS award, SpaceX had flown Falcon 1.

My point is that awarding lunar landing missions to companies with zero experience as a team in space missions is fairly inane.

[Danderman]

If even one of these providers becomes successful and can begin offering reliable lunar services, then CLIPS will have been successful. Isn't a good part of the program fostering commercial development, and like venture capital its a big risk with each individual "bet" from a spread of investments. The hope is that at least one makes good... And overall to give more new entrants a chance and a leg-up. 

Hope is not a strategy.

What's wrong with requiring that bidders have prior experience in spaceflight?

[Eric Hedman]

If even one of these providers becomes successful and can begin offering reliable lunar services, then CLIPS will have been successful. Isn't a good part of the program fostering commercial development, and like venture capital its a big risk with each individual "bet" from a spread of investments. The hope is that at least one makes good... And overall to give more new entrants a chance and a leg-up. 

Hope is not a strategy.

What's wrong with requiring that bidders have prior experience in spaceflight?

Because you might rule out someone with a creative and innovative approach that can significantly improve how it gets done.  That doesn't mean you don't seriously scrutinize what is being proposed.

[matt19215]

Intuitive Machines will surely learn from their mistakes from this mission. They got another two on the books!

I was wondering, do you think NASA will have the will to start a new commercial payload services program aimed at Mars and other celestial bodies?

For example, Rocket Lab is sending a commercial probe to Venus next year, and Impulse is launching a commercial lander mission to Mars in 2026. By then, almost all of the contracted CLPS missions will have concluded, there could be some encouragement to move forward with a commercial program like this.

[sdsds]

[...]
What's wrong with requiring that bidders have prior experience in spaceflight?

Because you might rule out someone with a creative and innovative approach that can significantly improve how it gets done.  That doesn't mean you don't seriously scrutinize what is being proposed.

Also cost. Taken to the extreme NASA could have solicited bids only from companies with proven planetary lander technology. LM would have won, offering a single mission that consumed the entire budget, with no likelihood of cost reduction on future missions.

If a hungry bear is charging at you then yes, you want a high precision rifle to fire a single super-expensive round. If you're being rushed by a pack of wolves a low-cost shotgun is the better choice. NASA wants to get lots of small-ish payloads to the lunar surface, particularly the south pole region. CLPS stands a good chance of enabling more than one low-cost service provider that can compete to provide that.

[yg1968]

Although I am a big supporter of the policy of NASA buying space science data ftom private companies (I wrote the enabling language in the Commercial Space Act of 1998), I am not happy with the implementation.

My take on the implementation: NASA throws money at startups with no track record, and hopes that they can pull off lunar landings with zero experience in space. Giving contracts for companies that haven't even launched a Cubesat is a recipe for disaster.

Once enough of these errors result in money thrown into the trash, I would hope that NASA will simply buy data from private missions, funded by private capital.

SpaceX had no experience when it won a COTS award.

By the time of the COTS award, SpaceX had flown Falcon 1.

My point is that awarding lunar landing missions to companies with zero experience as a team in space missions is fairly inane.

COTS was awarded in 2006. The first successful Falcon 1 mission was in 2008 (the first Falcon 1 flight was in 2006 but it was a failure). 

[yg1968]

See below:

The FY24 CJS Appropriations Explanatory Statement indicates that CLPS should be used to deliver the nuclear power demo unit on the lunar surface:

Lunar Surface Power.-The agreement provides up to $40,000,000 and no less than the fiscal year 2023 enacted level for Lunar Surface Power, including up to $20,000,000 for Fission Surface Power. NASA is directed to use Lunar Surface Power demonstration funding for payload development and associated delivery services via the Commercial Lunar Payload Services program.

https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20240304/FY24%20CJS%20Conference%20JES%20scan%203.3.24.pdf

[MRJC]

[FutureSpaceTourist]

https://twitter.com/nasaoig/status/1798722112947101839

NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services initiative is making progress but faces challenges, including increased costs and schedule delays. Read the full report:

https://oig.nasa.gov/office-of-inspector-general-oig/audit-reports/nasas-commercial-lunar-payload-services-initiative/

[zubenelgenubi]

Cross-post:

https://twitter.com/NASA/status/1813664486663786897

NASA @NASA
After a comprehensive review, we are discontinuing development of our VIPER (Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover) project. We are committed to studying and exploring the Moon, and will pursue other methods to accomplish many of VIPER's goals: https://go.nasa.gov/3W0WSWI

https://www.nasa.gov/news-release/nasa-ends-viper-project-continues-moon-exploration/ [Jul 17]

Following a comprehensive internal review, NASA announced Wednesday its intent to discontinue development of its VIPER (Volatiles Investigating Polar Exploration Rover) project.

NASA stated cost increases, delays to the launch date, and the risks of future cost growth as the reasons to stand down on the mission. The rover was originally planned to launch in late 2023, but in 2022, NASA requested a launch delay to late 2024 to provide more time for preflight testing of the Astrobotic lander. Since that time, additional schedule and supply chain delays pushed VIPER’s readiness date to September 2025, and independently its CLPS (Commercial Lunar Payload Services) launch aboard Astrobotic’s Griffin lander also has been delayed to a similar time. Continuation of VIPER would result in an increased cost that threatens cancellation or disruption to other CLPS missions. NASA has notified Congress of the agency’s intent.

“We are committed to studying and exploring the Moon for the benefit of humanity through the CLPS program,” said Nicola Fox, associate administrator, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters in Washington. “The agency has an array of missions planned to look for ice and other resources on the Moon over the next five years. Our path forward will make maximum use of the technology and work that went into VIPER, while preserving critical funds to support our robust lunar portfolio.”

Moving forward, NASA is planning to disassemble and reuse VIPER’s instruments and components for future Moon missions. Prior to disassembly, NASA will consider expressions of interest from U.S. industry and international partners by Thursday, Aug. 1, for use of the existing VIPER rover system at no cost to the government. Interested parties should contact [email protected] after 10 a.m. EDT on Thursday, July 18. The project will conduct an orderly close out through spring 2025.

Astrobotic will continue its Griffin Mission One within its contract with NASA, working toward a launch scheduled for no earlier than fall 2025. The landing without VIPER will provide a flight demonstration of the Griffin lander and its engines.

NASA will pursue alternative methods to accomplish many of VIPER’s goals and verify the presence of ice at the lunar South Pole. A future CLPS delivery – the Polar Resources Ice Mining Experiment-1 (PRIME-1) — scheduled to land at the South Pole during the fourth quarter of 2024, will search for water ice and carry out a resource utilization demonstration using a drill and mass spectrometer to measure the volatile content of subsurface materials.